Alabama was right to illegalize the woman being on top during sexual encounters.
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Arguments and rebuttals
Round 4: Summary
I expect all factual claims to be backed up by sources, Pro expected to have the burden of proof.
Good luck, and hopefully this will be a great debate!
Either way, whether or not this law actually does exist, for the sake of this debate I will assume that it does, in fact, exist, unless my opponent fails to bringing up a source affirming this laws existence. If that was confusing, basically I'm going to assume it exists for this round.
>Contention 1- This Law is Unconstitutional
Under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, Section 1 it states-
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This right here specifically says that states that, well, States, cannot make or enforce any law that deprives any person of life, liberty, or property- and consented sexual encounters fall under both life and liberty- our freedom to choose, which a State is not to interfere with.
Under a United States Amendment, the US specifically bans the creation and the enforcement of this rule, therefore the United States Federal Government sides with Con that this one sex position shouldn't be banned.
>Contention 2- Why doesn't the Government ban ALL sex?
"If our dominant consideration is to prevent "penile fractures," well it's a fair bet that 100% of these injuries occur during some kind of sex... so why not ask the government to ban ALL sex? If it appears absurd to ban all sex, then perhaps it's also absurd to regulate other common sexual practices that are consensual?"
I don't think I need to add anything more here.
>Contention 3- How many penile fractures actually occur, and is this number even significant?
For this argument, I looked into the source my opponent used above which highlights penile fractures in Brazil. It lists that there were a total of 44 suspected fractures over the course of 13 years. A mere forty-four in thirteen years! That's only about three and one third of a penile fracture every year!
Compare this to how many people in this area of Brazil are having sex, and this is less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of sexual encounters ending in a fractured penis. Seeing as there are next to 1 million people who reside in Campinas, Brazil <http://population.mongabay.com...;, and chances are that around half that number are sexually active, and around half THAT number being male, the grand total would come out to around 3 fractured penises out of 250,000- that's two hundred fifty thousand- per year, which, as I stated earlier, is less than a fraction OF A FRACTION of one percent of sexual encounters- especially considering that each person likely has multiple encounters per year.
This being the case, we can clearly see that penile fractures, while devastating, rarely occur, and therefore this rule is actually very unnecessary seeing as the only reason it exists is to curtail the almost nonexistent number of penile fractures. If the chance of getting a penile fracture is virtually zero, then why does a law exist to further reduce this number?
>Contention 4- The Sheer Absurdity of Enforcement
Exactly HOW is this law enforced? It's not like Alabama can just keep tabs on every citizen's sexual life- seeing as that would defy multiple laws on freedom and security- so HOW is a law about a specific sex position even enforced?
Who figures this kind of thing out? Is some guy just gonna barge in on everybody while they're having sex and regulate their sexual encounter? Is that also a law, that all sex must be monitored? If not, I ask again, how is this law even enforced? And if it isn't enforced, then obviously why should this law even exist?
In conclusion, I would like to refresh that I would like to see proof of this law in my opponents next round. Thank you, once again, and I will continue writing new arguments for the next round.
It has come to my attention that Alabama has recently changed the law.
My opponent claimed that the American government can't make sex positions illegal, but they can, and they have. In Virginia every sex position is illegal except for the missionary. In Virginia it's also illegal to have sex with the lights on. (http://www.dumblaws.com...). Virginia being on the border of Washington D.C., may have its laws well known amongst congress, and if they do, obviously congress must not care. Plus there is still a sex law in Alabama. There, it's illegal to "deflower" a virgin, no matter the couples' marital status. ( http://www.dumblaws.com...)
My opponent asked why the government doesn't just ban sex. Well if they did that, our population would drop. The laws that the governments put up on certain sexual activities is because they deemed these activities immoral.
My opponent claims that penile fractures aren't a big deal and a lot of people don't get one. But according to medical literature, there are 2,000 cases a year, but there could be more. We'd never know because people are too embarrased by their predicament. (http://www.emaxhealth.com...). That may not seem like much but it can still be considered a big problem. Penile fractures actually occur very often in young men. Mostly 16-30 years of age, which this is just 50.88% of all penile fracture cases.
The government can easily hack into your smartphones and turn on your cameras and microphones. This could give them the ability to watch. (http://www.washingtonsblog.com...). For instace, the NSA have put their code into Android's operating system, this covers 3/4 of the world's smartphones. Remember the smartphone camera and mic thing? The government can use your computer too, and in the same exact way. (http://www.washingtonsblog.com...). The government has recently got a hold of a couple of hub satellites to spy on earth, and who knows how good this is. The tech may be good enough to see straight through our windows. ( http://skullsinthestars.com...)
I'd like to ask my opponent this. When has the modern government ever listened to the constitution?
GildedBindings forfeited this round.
GildedBindings forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.